Interesting JE Hits....

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Please see Neo's posts where she mentions process etc. That is not the claim she is making.

Okay, Darat, if she says so.

In that case, then its just how I understand the "process" and I really don't so far see anything contradictory with JE's and how others' are described. There are differences in which one they rely on most, but this seems perfectly consistent with the idea of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience being the communication "process" that all mediums use to varying degrees. I don't see the inconsistency in this with others and what JE does.

And as I have repeated many time Pete Popoff is a very good example of how not having "rumours" is not evidence that fraud is not taking place. PP had many collaborators - yet none came forward therefore there is proof that the repeated comment about "No one on his staff has come forward" or "No rumours.." is totally irrelevant and cannot be used in any way to support the belief the JE can communicate with the dead.

I think the day-to-day scrutiny of a television show would have brought Popoff to attention sooner. (Plus, after the Jaroff article came out, USA Networks started scrutinizing the show a great deal more as well).

Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

 

[CFLarsen]

In that case, then its just how I understand the "process" and I really don't so far see anything contradictory with JE's and how others' are described. There are differences in which one they rely on most, but this seems perfectly consistent with the idea of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience being the communication "process" that all mediums use to varying degrees. I don't see the inconsistency in this with others and what JE does.

Sheeesh.....

I think the day-to-day scrutiny of a television show would have brought Popoff to attention sooner. (Plus, after the Jaroff article came out, USA Networks started scrutinizing the show a great deal more as well).

What "scrutiny"? The ABC team was not allowed to film backstage, remember? Does JE allow anyone to look him over the shoulder? Does he respond to criticism at all?

Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

Why not? We know he knows at least 25% of the identity of the audience, and we know about all the other possible methods JE could use.

Whatever comes up, you either ignore, misrepresent, misinterpret or simple claim that it isn't analogous. The denial continues.

 

[voidx]

...and notice that JE doesn't start getting anything specific until AFTER he is told that the tree was in the cemetary. Then suddenly, JE starts talking about how the tree was how visitors would find the grave.

It's possible that this is just how mediumship works. JE got a symbol about cutting down a tree and once the sitters got him on the right track, then spirit showed other images to help confirm that they got it right.

But it also seems to me like this could be cold reading: JE tosses out something, sitters verify and provide more details, then he turns those details around, adds a little more, and tries for a more "special hit", while creating the impression that he was the one who knew that the tree was in a cemetary.

Exactly. Taking a logical look at it, it fits very well inside the confines of what cold-reading is. I dislike running around invoking Occam's Razor as many people misuse it, but if we know cold-reading is possible, we can prove it, we can demonstrate it, and this seems quite similar to it. Why is the paranormal necessary to explain this? From everything I've seen in all these threads with all these transcripts my opinion is still solidly, its not necessary.

As for the process of mediumship, this has flip flopped so many times, even within these threads that its obvious no one has any real idea, its all subjective. At times when getting numbers would be clearest, oh, JE doesn't get numbers, he gets things visually. When letters, or a name would be clearest, oh JE gets things in symbols in his own frame of reference. Do you not find it telling that of the 3 forms of Clairvoyance, sentiences, audience, its often seems to be the most inappropriate of the 3 that is used in each specific case? Why? Because it is the most vague and gives the medium the most leway.

 

[Darat]

Okay, Darat. I think I am almost at the point where I am ready to throw in the towel. I feel like I am living in Bizarro World. Where exactly do you see mediums, especially JE, but other mediums as well, stating that there is not some sort of a process for mediumship? Could you help me out here, because you are losing me.

JE says for instance:

KING: What -- do you see something, or do you hear? What...

EDWARD: I think a big misconception with this work is that people think that a psychic or a medium -- I'm seeing them like I'm seeing you.

And I can only speak for myself. I don't want to speak in broad strokes for every medium that's out there, of which there are many around the world that are equally as talented who might not ever sit in front of a camera or write a book or go on the radio, they just do their thing.

He is very clear to state he only speaks for himself.

Oh, so now you are more or less admitting that other mediums do have a process of sorts, only it's a different process from JE's process? Fine, then perhaps now you could show me where I ever said that JE's process was identical to that of every other medium's process. (?) Certainly, they're all doing mediumship, and there are many similarities, but the process has to be personalized to each individual. One medium would not necessarily understand another medium's symbols.

No I do not say that at all. I have been questioning your claim that there is a “process” that mediums follow, this is your claim. You must not have noticed I used the word “process” in speech marks when referring to other mediums, I did this to indicate I was using your word. Some mediums don’t have a “process” in the sense of symbols etc. they just “see” people as you and I do, it just happens they can “see” people that the rest of us can’t.

Please show where a medium like Doris Stokes or Derek Akorah state that they see “symbols” line JE does, they claim to hear and see the spirits, that these sprits talk to them. (DA does state that he also gets “feelings” from energies…) The claims that you make for the process that you say JE uses i.e. symbols is not a process common across mediumship.

…snip…


Darat, this is the only quote that I would like to clarify. The others I'll let stand. I should not have generalized here and said that mediums don't seem to get letters as a rule, because I am not all that familiar with mediums other than JE. I myself posted just today that George Anderson sees both spirits AND letters/words. (e.g. the word AIDS over the person's head) So I would amend this quote to Loki to read that "I don't know why JE doesn't seem to get letters, but as a rule, he doesn't.

…snip…

Well, Darat, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I sincerely cannot see how you think you have made this case. I won't belabor the point any further, however, and I would welcome other opinions. I think we are simply talking past eachother somehow. .....neo

To re-iterate it is you that has made the suggestion that there is a process for mediumship, I have offered evidence to indicate that this statement is not true.

(Edited to place JE quote in correct place.)

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Didn't Popoff have a confederate in the audience who gave him information on a hidden mike? I really don't see how this is analogous to what JE could possibly be doing.

He had several collaborators, his wife viewed the show from out of sight and relayed information gathered by his staff prior to the show starting. (i.e. he had people who gathered the information for "hot reading"). There were also people involved who set up the radio link to his earpiece.

Despite all these people being involved not one of them came forward prior to his exposure via an investigation.

What this shows is that it is possible to have a person knowingly commit a deliberate deception to give the appearance of having a gift that others don't and to have many other people involved in this deception and for there not to be "rumours" known to the public at large or have an employee come forward and reveal the fraud.


Therefore it goes against the evidence we have to state that a collaborating factor in accepting JE as someone who can communicate to the dead is that no employee etc. has come forward with claims of deception.

It is a fact that a long term deception of a claim of "special gift" is possible.

 

[Lurker]

Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Lurker

 

[RC]

As for the process of mediumship, this has flip flopped so many times, even within these threads that its obvious no one has any real idea, its all subjective. At times when getting numbers would be clearest, oh, JE doesn't get numbers, he gets things visually. When letters, or a name would be clearest, oh JE gets things in symbols in his own frame of reference. Do you not find it telling that of the 3 forms of Clairvoyance, sentiences, audience, its often seems to be the most inappropriate of the 3 that is used in each specific case? Why? Because it is the most vague and gives the medium the most leway.

Yes, the process is subjective. But if you have a look in the "Big JE misses" thread, I have written about my own personal experience in a mediumship experiment. While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by RC

While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.

Hi RC,

Any chance of you starting a thread with that--or putting it in Mike's (short) thread asking you about psychic development?

That was such an interesting experience and I think it gets lost in that long thread.

I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

True. However, since mediums learn from each other ("study" might be an applicable term), then there must be some sort of "process".

JE speaks of one, too.

So far, we haven't seen any, though.

 

[voidx]

Posted by RC:

Yes, the process is subjective. But if you have a look in the "Big JE misses" thread, I have written about my own personal experience in a mediumship experiment. While I don't argue that I experienced true mediumship, given that what I experienced was similar to the "process", I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.

Yes I do remember reading that, and would be interested to hear more. But just realize that while I have no reason to believe you would be misleading of your account I still have to swallow my "ancedotyle pill" because I have only you're word to verify upon. I don't disagree with your statement persay, but do realize that lately in these posts there have been attempts to try and nail down a process of sorts for how these mediums work. That has come in part from mine and others prompting of just how this communication works because it seems horrible inconsistent from medium to medium, and even sometimes from reading to reading from the same medium.

Posted by Clancie:

I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder.

We will listen to it, try and get as many details as possible about the reading, or series of readings, and the exact dialogue shared, as much as possible and judge it based upon that. Please do realize though Clancie that RC's reading if I remember right was not done by JE. In fact it appears to be a much more solid hit than anything I've seen in the transcripts for JE. JE has been the focus of these threads for the most part, and in my own opinion he's not been shown to get hits unexplainable by cold-reading. RC's experience seems like it may be different, but lets not glaze over the fact that these threads have not done much to convince anyone of JE's ability. If anything, they've cemented our opinion that he's merely cold-reading.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi RC,

Any chance of you starting a thread with that--or putting it in Mike's (short) thread asking you about psychic development?

That was such an interesting experience and I think it gets lost in that long thread.

I'm very curious what some others here will think of it ("coincidence"? "stretching"? "luck?" "hard to explain?") Will anyone consider the possibility that you, at a minimum, had an experience that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis and dismissal? I wonder.

Clancie, I really think you have BOTH your hands full as it is....no need to divert (once again!) attention from the threads you are already participating in.

 

[Darat]

Clearly what neo meant was that for each and every medium they will have their own unique process.

Which really brings into question why she mentioned process at all. If each is unique then there really is nothing to learn from one medium to another.

Lurker

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship whereas the evidence seems to be that JE is pretty unique in his descriptions of his process (compared to other mediums).

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

I diasagree. Neo seems to have used (and did so in her last post to me) that getting "symbols" in the manner claimed by JE is part of the process of mediumship

Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you?

 

[Darat]

Just for the record, I personally think neo's right in talking about a process of communication that is commonly used by mediums.

I thought she was referrring to the blend of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and clairsentience that all mediums seem to share, although they may have different preferences and strengths within those three.

So...neo, Are you saying the "mediumship process" is something other than this? To me, it seems that all mediums I can think of say that they use a mixture of the above, including clairvoyance (and clairvoyance is based on images--some of which can assume a consistent symbolism for a particular medium).

I really don't understand what their question is. Do you? [/B]

Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

 

[Clancie]

Darat,

Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance? That is the "process" I'm referring to. It is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic.

Are you disputing that others use clairvoyance?

Or that images are repeated for mediums other than JE? I am not saying that his images and consistent interpretation of their meaning is the same as it would be if another medium saw that same image. Their process (clairvoyance/clairaudience/clairsentience), not necessarily individual symbols, is what I'm saying is similar.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

What part of "the "symbol process" of JE" don't you understand? Look in the glossary that JE uses and that he has on his SciFi-site. Look in his books.

JE gets a white rose for congratulations, numbers for important dates, etc.

Do other mediums use this "symbol process" too?

Stop faking ignorance, stop your incessant stalling and get to the friggin' point!

(Funny how this always happens when you have a tough job ahead of you....)

 

[SteveGrenard]

John Edward was Taught by Others

Darat: Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

The symbolism business is taught by many mediums who teach psychic development including one who claims to have taught John Edward! The following is excerpted from her website which is given also:

the following is excerpted from:

http://www.starchildbooks.com/psydevelopwkshps.htm

Sandy Anastasi has been teaching classes in Psychic Development and Tarot for over 20 years. Her former students include world famous Psychic Super-Star John Edward, host of Television's "Crossing Over", the famous but now deceased Psychic Medium Shelley Peck, and many other gifted professionals. Whether you want to be a pro, or just learn
to access your own psychic gifts to enrich your life, now is your opportunity to participate in a special program wherein Sandy's own Psychic Development 1, 2, and 3 series classes are encapsulated into 3 full week-ends of fun and learning! Sandy teaches these three seminars with John Maerz, who is a gifted psychic with over 35 years of experience. John, a Reiki Master, performs a "Psychic Attunement" on each student to help facilitate a psychic "opening" in Psychic Development 2. This is not available to students who take the courses on tape. The blending of their abilities brings you a truly transformational experience. Together, all three seminars comprise a complete program in psychic development. Psychic Development 1 is the same class John Edward, star of 'Crossing Over', started out with. ....................(truncated)

 

[Darat]

Re: John Edward was Taught by Others

Darat: Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.

The symbolism business is taught by many mediums who teach psychic development including one who claims to have taught John Edward! The following is excerpted from her website which is given also:

the following is excerpted from:

http://www.starchildbooks.com/psydevelopwkshps.htm

...snip...

Thank you for this reference Steve, an even more relevant section then the one you quoted is:

P7 - Mediumship III: Symbols & Policy will be taught by Sandy Anastasi, John Maerz, and Ed Hicks. This class covers how to receive and interpret symbols from spirit, and practical applications of mediumship.

Here is a very explicit reference to "symbols". However it doesn’t quite answer my question i.e. "Please provide some collaboration that the "symbol process" of JE is the same as other mediums.". It certainly would indicate that symbols can form part of the repertory of a mediums communication with the dead. (Which I don’t think I’ve questioned (?). )

I also agree that this site would seem to support that JE uses a "process" that is common in mediumship (especially if her claim of teaching JE is true).Yet I find I am still not able to find the words of mediums who describe their communication as "symbols" and within a "personal frame of reference", I haven't found one yet. And I have looked for them, well at least on the web.

I still want to see evidence of a medium other then JE describe their communication in the manner of being reliant on symbols and a "personal frame of reference" as Neo describes JE's process is before I can accept that there is merit in Neo’s theory.

As a follow up to this I take it that you (and Neo if she agrees this supports her theory that JE uses the process of mediumship) accept this site as an authority on mediumship?

And the reason I ask, (just so that I am totally upfront about my motivation for asking this question), is that there is a lot of questions I have from reading this site that I would love to ask believers in JE (or other) ability to communicate with the dead.

 

[Darat]

Darat,

Are you asking for examples of how other mediums use clairvoyance? That is the "process" I'm referring to. It is based in images, some of which are repeated so often that they can be seen as symbolic.

Are you disputing that others use clairvoyance?

Or that images are repeated for mediums other than JE? I am not saying that his images and consistent interpretation of their meaning is the same as it would be if another medium saw that same image. Their process (clairvoyance/clairaudience/clairsentience), not necessarily individual symbols, is what I'm saying is similar.

No I'm not denying anything about mediums and I am not putting forward any evidence or theory for or against JE's or any other medium's ability.

I'll try to re-state my main point/issue again. (This is all paraphrasing rather then nit picking a syllable at a time - I won't get into that - well apart from a sly comment that you've used the word "develop" for how JE gets his special hits )

Neo claims that JE has a "process", that is a common mediumship technique and that the reason he cannot get some of the detail people ask from him is because of this process. His communciation "process" is that gets his information via symbols which have to be within his "personal frame of reference".

I still cannot find any other medium that describe their "process" of mediumship as symbols within a personal frame of reference - this seems quite unique to JE.

 

[Loki]

RC,

I'm much more open to the concept that mediumship can be real, yet not operate in a very logical manner.

I think you mean to say something like "yet not operate in an easily understood or explained manner". Surely the premise has to be (by those who believe) that there are clear and logical reasons why JE does things the way he does, but that we poor unpsychics just can't see these reasons.

Just to restate the JE issue :

1. He recieves "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that contain meaning for the sitter.
2. Numbers are "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that he can receive easily.
3. Letters are "symbols from within his personal frame of reference" that he can't receive at all.

The reason given for this clear contradiction? "That's just the way it is..."